NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Most media outlets cannot be bothered to report something that dramatically deflates their narrative. So it goes without saying that when NASA confirmed that ocean levels have actually been falling for the past few years, the media would be more than silent.

As the global warming narrative quickly unravels, and leftists scramble to throw accusations at those who dare question the false data, the media brushes facts under the rug. Amidst revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked “hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years.

On a NASA page intended to spread climate alarmism (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/), NASA’s own data reveal that worldwide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. 

This data clearly contradicts the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities. The narrative is climate alarmists key element of the climate change fear mongering fiction that’s used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich.

Global warming alarmists might say this is only a “pause” in the rising ocean levels, and that the long-term trend is clearly in the direction of rising oceans. However, these people wildly exaggerate the degree of ocean level increases to the point of absurdity and have been caught red-handed completely fabricating data to continue scaring the public into supporting a non-issue.

Even in a worse case scenario, sea levels will rise only about a foot over the next 100 years. That amount is far short of what climate alarmists would need to create an apocalyptic event based solely on the weather.  Looking at current events right now, we’d say that Armageddon would more likely be created by a world war or a global economic collapse. 

Even a warmer planet would be more hospitable to plants. But again, warmth as a benefit for plant life is not something climate alarmists want to hear. They need their backsides patted by the same lies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Lumberjack's picture

It's california's fault.. Now you can see why Al Gore et.al. kept buying ocean front property.

Speaking of ocean front property...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bangordailynews.com/2017/07/26/news/han...

Unreliable Narrator's picture

Perhaps Maunder has something to say about the climate.

Oh, wait . . . written by Russians.  Please disregard.  This is a Putin psyop.

yomutti2's picture

This is such a moronic article. Look at the sea level chart. There have been several little dips before, and we happen to be in one at the moment. But the overall rising trend is obvious, and there is no reason to believe that it had stopped. THe same thing happened around 2010, and then the sea level rise took off like a rocket again after that brief pause.

 

Scrimpy's picture

AMIDST JEW RUN MEDIA BLACKOUT.....

 

 

Fixed it for ya!

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

Dear Leader Obama did state that He would lower sea levels...

ThaBigPerm's picture

Exposes and articles explaining why falling sea levels "prove" global warming is worse than we ever thought in 5.....4.....3.....2....

Slack Jack's picture

So, why is the global rise in temperatures so worrisome?

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).

Another major problem is sea-level rise.

Have a look at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

The U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

The Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),
the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),
the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),
and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of about 80.3 meters (263.5 feet).

So, what does an 80 meter (263 feet) rise in sea-level mean. Have a look at the following map of the world after an 80 meter rise. It means that over one billion people will have to be resettled to higher ground and that much of the most productive agricultural land will be under water. Fortunately, at current rates, the Greenland ice sheet will take over a thousand years to melt and the Antarctica ice sheet, much longer. However, the greater the temperature rise the faster the ice sheets will melt, bringing the problem much closer. Remember, the huge ice sheet that recently covered much of North America, almost completely melted in only 15,000 years (today, only the Greenland ice sheet, and some other small patches of it, remain). Since then (15,000 years ago), sea-levels have risen about 125 meters (410 feet), only 80 meters to go.

The ice sheets have been continuously melting for thousands of years. What is left of them today, is still melting, and will continue to melt. Human caused global warning will cause this remnant to melt significantly faster. This is a big, big, problem.

For HUGE detailed maps of the "World after the Melt" go to:

http://preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23

Global temperatures are increasing. And by quite a lot each year.

2016 is the hottest year on record for global temperatures.

This is 0.0380 degrees centigrade hotter than the previous record year which was 2015.

0.0380 is a large increase in just one year.

2015 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.1601 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2014.

0.1601 is an absolutely huge increase in just one year (at this rate temperatures would increase by 16 degrees in a century.).

2014 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.0402 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2010.

http://preearth.net/images/temp-anomalies-1880-2017.txt

http://preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23

armageddon addahere's picture

263 feet? Where is all the water supposed to come from?

We know that 15,000 years ago the northern hemisphere was covered with an ice cap 2 miles thick that extended as far south as Pennsylvania. When all that ice melted it raised sea levels 400 feet. Now you are saying we can expect a similar amount of water from the north pole, greenland and the south pole. Even if every bit of ice melts there isn't that much there.

bluez's picture

WHERE THE FUCK DID ALL THAT WATER GO?

SoDamnMad's picture

Beer at NASCAR tracks.

TheRealBilboBaggins's picture

I see the Muslims are waking up now.  When it gets dark you will be rioting in the streets, burning cars, and molesting women passerbys.  

GUS100CORRINA's picture

NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout

My response: Before reading any further, I want you to sit down and buckle up. Below is a video that I am encouraging you to take the time to watch. Not only are the sea levels falling, but the SUN is going into hibernation and it is going to get really cold for the next 40 years. I will stop at this point. Again, I encourage you to watch the video which is about 47 minutes. It will explain why the sea levels are falling and confirm with data that GLOBAL WARMING is a complete and utter farce. References to the President are directed at the OBAMA administration and CLINTON administration. NOT the TRUMP administration.

========

https://youtu.be/XQ4ikNJhMHA

This is Why NOBODY KNOWS SOMETHING STRANGE are Happening... (2017-2018)

Prophetic Warning TV 

Published on Jul 4, 2017

cougar_w's picture

ikr

"Climate alarmist narrative that sea level always rises". No such narrative. Sea level does what it does, and it's increasing most of the time for the last century, and there is no reason to assume it will not continue to increase in a like manner more or less so long as nothing else changes.

Supported by the chart.

Lurk Skywatcher's picture

"THe same thing happened around 2010, and then the sea level rise took off like a rocket again after that brief pause."

Was that same thing the "scientists" being busted adjusting the data?

Why, yes. Yes it was. 2009 Climategate. They had to rein in their falsifying of the data until the heat was off, then they got back on the horse until it was revealed again in 2016.

Et voila! A magical turn around in the "sea level rise will kill us all" evidence.

That, fucknuckle, it the "obvious rising trend" propaganda you are trying to push. Fuck off ukevatti.

ThirdWorldNut's picture

Great rebuttal. You would imagine that conflict of interest would be a very obvious concept, yet how many people either dont understand it or completely choose to ignore it. 

Climate scientists whose career depends on research grants are telling us that we need to give them more grants or we will all die. I remember same blackmailing around early 90s about ozone layer, which (surprise, surprise) healed itself. Scientists then moved onto the climate change hysteria, which accelerated soon after that.

This in itself should make all of us very skeptical, even before you think about the amount of money we are being blackmailed for - 100s of billions. Money that could otherwise be spent on education, health, infrastructure and what not.

We need to keep pushing for better evidence, more transparency and higher research standards. Until then the only wise course of action is to be agnostic.

giorgioorwell's picture

Haha, yeah, great rebuttal.

You guys are a special kind of math-morons, aren't you? Well, that's no surprise if you were edu-ma-cated in 'murica.

Have you rocket scientists never read any kind of measurement chart before..nothing is a straight line up or down, there's always noise, just like any Peak Oil chart, it's bumpy... This drop mentioned is just chart noise from taking the high point to the current point.   If that's how you guys measure trends then I'd love to see your analysis on any other chart based fact.

Pick any point on this chart prior to January of 2015 and compare to the most recent reading, and it's is SIGNIFICANTLY higher.  

Draw a freakin trend line idiots.

Slow Burning Rage's picture

Eight centimeteres in 20 years..."SIGNIFICANTLY higher".  At this rate we will reach the 400 feet the other dude is panicked about in oh...say...32,000 years.  Seriously.  Take your Prozac and return to your safe space.  

Jani's picture

 

 

NASA = Never A Straight Answer

 

 

I Don't belive anything those knuckheads tell us.

 

 

SixIsNinE's picture

always worth remembering the quote by the NASA whistleblower:  "We didn't just lie about the moonlandings, we lied about EVERYTHING"

 

#globexit

#NASALIES

JERANISM  - GLOBEBUSTERS - DITRH - MARKSARGENT

 

Earth is Stationary - Believe your Eyes & Senses

 

Antifaschistische's picture

I took a tour in Greece.   Guide took us to ancient Corinth....we stopped at some place along the ocean that had an ancient pier.  They said that Jesus "may have" been on this pier.  the problem was, it was under water.  The guide (who I guarantee had no global warming agenda) said the oceans have been slowly rising for the last 2,000 years.  If my memory serves me correctly it looks like the water needed to be about 18 inches lower to make the pier an appropriate level.

BrownCoat's picture

"This is such a moronic article."

Also, NASA propaganda continues the montra of rising sea levels.

NASA needs to get repurposed into an organization that 'pioneers space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.' Scrapping it now would end some of the corporate welfare enjoyed by the aerospace industry. It would also allow government bureaucrats to get replaced with people who share a vision for pioneering space exploration and scientific discovery.

TheVillageIdiot's picture

They can start by putting a man on the moon for the first time... since American taxp\yers already footed the bill 50 years ago

TBT or not TBT's picture

Several hundred thousand people worked o that project for years, applying engineering, physics, planning and organizational skills around that singular purpose.    It would be news to them that none of it happened. 

Charming Anarchist's picture

Several hundred thousand people worked on assembly lines manufacturing widgets and WERE TOLD they were working around that single purpose and they enjoyed their paycheque and they kept the mantra going.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Yeah those stupid chemists, mathematicians, physicists, electrical and Computer engineers, aerospace engineers, astrophysicists, medical doctors, supply chain managers, accountants, and yes merely Skilled machinists tecnicians and tradesmen...   Fooled so very Easily. 

devnickle's picture

NASA also showed in a study last week that Co2 as a global warming vector is bullshit. It's.04% of our atmosphere. Give me a fucking break. Scam artists. Seems to be the norm now. 

Automatic Choke's picture

If you are going to argue against something, get your facts straight and argue for the right reasons.   The reason that CO2 is such a non-worry is not because there is so little, but because there is already so much.   At a tenth of what we have now (0.04%) the CO2 lines in the infrared were already saturated.  That means that it is like a black blanket over your head.  If the blanket blocks 99.9% of the light, adding a second blanket -- although it does block 99.9% of what little is left -- has very little effect because there is so little left.   (None of this is in contention, it is just too complex for sound bites.  This is the reason that everybody on both sides of the issue talk about temp rise per doubling.....that is a logarithmic response, which is what you get when you are saturated).

All the scientists on both sides of the issue freely agree that from the basic greenhouse effect, given that the CO2 lines are saturated, the additional warming for every doubling of CO2 is about a degree.   What the warmists argue is that there is some magical coupling that will make increasing CO2 warm it faster by increasing the greenhouse effects due to water or something along those lines.   They've been arguing it for years, and there is no theory and no data to back it up, and the predictions keep falling short.

So - learn what is what, and don't keep saying that CO2 doesn't matter because there is so little of it.  You got it backwards.

 

EBT excepted's picture

Oh yeahs likes da rohckets bruthah...weeza all be doomed n shit...

So's go fo' da nigrow rich whiles ya steel cans...

Hunned dollah beel 'n a gold toof...

DPLETTENBERG's picture

The chart is not showing the sea level but vaiation in the sea level which, I guess, is the difference between a high tide and low tide?

Automatic Choke's picture

no.....the "variation" is relative to some arbitrary nominal level.   this is supposed to be averaged out over tides.

mrtoad's picture

The question I ask is where do they do the measures? Is it the same way they get the sea temp measurement that has the majority of the 'gauges' around the equator  and only a few near the antarctic and arctic areas, which gives a skewed result leading to warmer averages.

Dimwit's picture

It's all 'Models' watch and learn in 3 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4

 

Atomic Punk's picture

Poor child. Still believing Al Whore, aren't you?

Dimwit's picture

It is impossible to measure Global sea level to the millimetre,It is a Local event. Watch the 3min video from scientists saying they can only guess to the nearest metre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4

 

stormsailor's picture

looks like a head and shoulders forming, i'm gonna short the piss out of it

MarsInScorpio's picture

yomutti:

You're dense as uranium.

Your post is such a moronic post. "Look at the sea level chart."

Note that 1990 is selected to be the base line for measuring variations. Tell us, what did the sea level fluctuations look like before 1990? Was that year a valley? If we measure over the past thousand years, where do these levels stand? How about the past million-years?

Your insanity is all about screaming that the past 30 - 50 years are the only significant era for taking measurements for evaluation.

In addition, we know with certainty that NASA and its cohorts in crime gave us "Fake Stats" which they altered to defraud fools like you.

Let's make this simple: yomutti, E S & D.

RockySpears's picture

No one would deny the rise, it is just that it has been rising since the guys living where the North Sea is now had to move upland.

  At the end of an ice age, the ice melts, and ....?

 

When sea level starts to fall, now that is when you should really worry,

 

RS

Lumberjack's picture

I couldn't find a way to blame the Russians for this. Maunder not so much but California did sell out to an alien race...

BTW, John Podesta inexplicably disappeared in a Utah desert 2 weeks ago...

August's picture

But you'd have to spend thousands to get the shit-stains out of the sofas and mattresses.

Solio's picture

Everything is bought and paid for into perpetuity. There are no worries or challenges here. It is the most boring of existences with no possibility to be creative. Sad.

SD Bob Plissken's picture

It's actually not ocean front, but pretty high up the hill in Montecito.  However, 6,500 square feet, 6 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, pool, swimming pool, spa and fountains on a 1.5 acre property is well beyond his hypocritical carbon footprint.

eclectic syncretist's picture

With all due respect Mr. Slavo, I don't follow this over-hyped wedge issue much, but I wouldn't short that chart you say shows levels are falling.

TBT or not TBT's picture

You could design a marketable security insurance product though, so people could speculate on it.   

veritas semper vinces's picture

No.The sea levels have only fallen since the Faggot left.

giorgioorwell's picture

You guys are a special kind of math-moron, arent' you? Well, that's no surprise if you were edu-ma-cated in 'murica.

Have you rocket scientists never read any kind of measurement chart before..nothing is a straight line up or down, there's always noise, just like any Peak Oil chart, it's bumpy... This drop mentioned is just chart noise from taking the high point to the current point.   If that's how you guys measure trends then I'd love to see your analysis on any other chart based fact.

Pick any point on this chart prior to January of 2015 and compare to the most recent reading, and it's is SIGNIFICANTLY higher.  

Draw a freakin trend line idiots.

Cui Bono's picture

One would do well to understand that huge variation in sea surface elevation documented by the GRACE-II project before saying anything about this kind of stupid shit.... There is a huge surficial variance world-wide... Like more than 300 feet.

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/grace-ii-small-satellite-study-project